"I mean, copy editors—their (sic) expendible, right?"

I see what you did there.

I mean, copy editors—their expendible, right?

Nicely done.

Hi Dan. Just a spelling/grammar correction. "their expendible, right?" should be "they're expendable right?" Expendible should be expendAble and their should be they're.

Crap. I missed that point entirely.

Dan's still right. Though RFFF has a point, but only in general. in this particular case, GF needs to back off. Too many avenues for discomfort and hurt feelings.

@ 3 - It seems you missed the joke.

This is the most references to "licking a dick" I've seen outside of Jerk City. http://24.media.tumblr.com/9efb9560d615c…

FFS. I as a gay man wouldn't freak out if asked to participate in a scene with one or more women present ("freak out" meaning worry that others would think I was straight, "scene" meaning extended active contact between me and said women), though there would definitely have to be at least one penis on deck and participating for reasonably certain arousal and climax on my part.

It's difficult, though, to imagine a bigger boner-killer for the F in a MFM to constantly see the two Ms maneuvering to avoid even the slightest touch. If that happens repeatedly, she should opt out of any future FFM/FMFs, and/or DTMFA.

I don't see why boyfriend can't be expected to be GGG for an MFM. He certainly can draw the line at any MM contact, but as part of an already threesome-having couple, I don't think it is too much to ask that he be one end of a spit-roast.

Also why can't her bi ex be eligible to participate? It would be less than ideal for him [he can only have half of the goodies on the dessert cart] but if he is an actual adult that understands that other people have boundaries, where's the problem?

And you can't fool me, The Stranger doesn't have copy editors.

Wait a minute. RFFF seems to be missing a key phrase in WYWALB's letter:

My wonderful boyfriend and I have been in a monogamish relationship for five years. We're both GGG, and we have had a few threesomes involving women, a fantasy both of us shared.

See the key? WYWALB's boyfriend was under the (correct) impression that the MFF threesomes were mutual fantasies, not something WYWALB was doing to be GGG. He certainly didn't know that those MFF threesomes came with the quid pro quo of an MMF (or MFM) threesome down the road.

Don't get me wrong: it's entirely fair for folks to condition one flavor of future threesome on another. But it's duplicitous to have one type of threesome, then spring the expectation of another type on your partner.

I would also add that RFFF seems to be ignorant of some fundamental aspects of male sexuality. We generally can't just power through sex we find off-putting like gals can. If we're not turned on right then, we go soft.

No one should be expected to engage in any threesome. Obviously, if that's a foundation set by a partner in establishing the relationship, then it could be an expectation. If someone reveals that it's an interest, then the partner should give it reasonable consideration, but that seems like a pretty big request. I know that a lot of polyamorous/monogamish/swinging folks don't understand why people would not be interested in threesomes, but it's a thing. Whether it's the jealousy, the disgust at homoerotic contact, or whatever else, people have a right to deny such activity.

dan, please tell me "their expendable" was deliberate.

If her main boyfriend won't do it, maybe she should ask another connection about it. (She is monogramish, after all.) She may not get EXACTLY what she wants but some of it. And I do think that Dan needs to geo back and be more clear that the boy friend needs to be willing to try it--while telling the bi friend that BF is off limits.

@14 I had read her "monogamish" to mean "occasional threesomes including the main partner". Maybe she could negotiate a pass to have a MFM with two other guys, but I have a hunch it'll be a tough sell. She could also make a MFM a prerequisite for any future FMF and see what he says. But she can't really apply that condition retroactively.

10 and 11 beat me to the main points. To reiterate:

It's totally reasonable, if you are a reluctant threesomer willing to do it for your partner, to lay down your own counter requirement beforehand. Like the opposite flavor threesome. If they don't like equal and opposite, your saying no to unequal and unbalanced shouldn't be a big deal. But that isn't what happened here: she WANTED ffm threesomes. She didn't make some big sacrifice of her own desires in order to accommodate his.

It's also totally normal to not be okay with some variations on threesomes. Some people don't find them appealing in any shape. Others are okay with it when casual, but imbalancing the legs with one beloved and one random doesn't work emotionally. Some guys are okay watching their girlfriends with another girl (perhaps because they believe the emotional side is reserved purely for the one with a penis, so another girl is no threat) but not with a guy. Someone in the main thread mentioned the threat response some guys get to an extra penis in the room: this is a real thing, and just like your lover's "I am totally not into threesomes" or "I am completely turned off by the idea of sex with my own gender" aren't little minor things to try and whine them out of, this also needs to be taken into consideration. Strong turn-offs count. Asking your partner to enact your fantasy of wildly enjoying sex with someone they actually find repulsive is a few steps beyond GGG.

Whaaaat the fuck on all of this coercive weirdness and redefinition of GGG. No, he should not have the threesome if he does not want the threesome. He didn't say, "Nah, I'm not really into that, but try to convince me and see what happens!" He said no. Fucking drop it.

10 and 17: bang on. She's bi; he's not.

Mr Ophian - An ex wouldn't bother me, though I don't think it should be a points-worthy infraction against anyone's GGG license to have a firm boundary against exes.

If by some complete lack of foresight you landed with a monosexual partner, what would you hold to be the ideal Threesome Ratio of Both Into It vs One Partner Really Stretching, or would it be prudent for orientationally mixed couples to avoid threesomes entirely?

… and regardless of that, her being okay with him fucking another woman doesn't mean that he's OBLIGED to be okay with her being fucked by another guy (or two other guys). The guy is entitled to his limits.

Mr Rob - You're a more flexible man than I am, Gunga Din.

The more times I read the letter, the more I'm inclined to regard exact compositions of threesomes as window dressing and focus on the latter portion:

[I feel like my BF is a little nervous about being with another man because (a) he has performance anxiety and/or (b) he's not comfortable exploring his sexuality (he grew up in a small town and was teased a lot about being gay because he was in theater). If he could get past his insecurities, I feel like he might enjoy himself.]

I'm sorry to see Mr Savage backpedaling from his original zeroing in on her first choice being "disrespectful and potentially disastrous". I took against LW not for anything to do with threesomes but because she's trying to push him into probing what could be a deep wound with apparent insensitivity, all while framing her own self-interest not only without acknowledging the probable biggest stumbling block but also as being for his own good. At best oblivious; likely controlling and nasty.

What? No. This is fucking stupid. No one should have to have sex with a gender or person they have no interest in just to please their partner. That's way beyond the reasonable limits of GGG.

I'm with @18 here. It sort of feels like recently GGG is being co-opted to mean "fulfill all my sexual fantasies or you're a BAD PARTNER," which is...not at all what it is.

@22, these days I can only get to within about 6 inch... oh.

With the exception of a good spit roast, (which, I might add, a minority of women would actually fully enjoy), I can't think of any MFM scenario where there isn't going to be any boy-on-boy touching. And I've heard from many women that a lot of guys lose their shit over a tiny amount of incidental boy on boy touching during a DP scene, no matter how hot it is for all parties involved.

@24: Yes, but as Dan points out, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The default is that women do a lot of things they aren't particularly into to please their men. There is no equality between the sexes if this is not also true of the men.

And really. So what if boy A's nuts touch boy B's dick while girl is being the center of attention? Suck it up, buttercup! It's not like two seconds of touching another guy is going to instantly turn you into a flamboyant sissy bottom - which is apparently every homophobe's worst nightmare.

Helix @24, "No one should have to have sex with a gender or person they have no interest in..."

Correct. But if GF's fantasy is to have the attention of two men on her, that is different than wanting to watch her BF suck cock. I didn't read her as asking for the latter.

IHSN @10, "He certainly didn't know that those MFF threesomes came with the quid pro quo of an MMF (or MFM) threesome"

Not so much a quid pro quo, as GF saying to BF: Hey, you know those threesomes we sometimes have? Well I have a huge fantasy about you me and another guy. What about it?

I understand GGG to mean good, giving and game. Ergo he should at least be able to enter into a constructive dialogue about her desire, examine his own inhibitions. If he can't do it, could he accommodate?

Mr. ven @20, I can surely see how an ex might be off of the table. Myself, I am not much of a threesome seeker...but the first one I was party to was with my GF and her ex. He and I ended up having much longer [although mostly platonic] relationship [due to a subsequent monogamous and monosexual partner]. My only FFM was a disastrous one with a mostly lesbian friend of mine and her totally lesbian friend...so there you go.

Now back to composing the theme song for my roommate's Boston terrier.

For being such a forceful writer, RFFF really could benefit from some basic reading comprehension.

As has been pointed out by others -- but can hardly be overstated now, in light of how badly RFFF bungled her reading -- MFF threesomes were HER fantasy. They may have been his also, but they were also hers. To say he isn't being GGG and giving her her fantasy is bullshit, for the painfully obvious reason that she JUST GOT one of her fantasies.

Second, to the extent that this was about fulfilling his fantasy as well as her own, she was not stretching her own limits to accommodate him in anything like the way that RFFF is loudly expecting him to stretch his to accommodate her in return.

It's as if she had said, "Since I agreed to sit down with you and eat chocolate cake, which we both like, I therefore think you should be willing to sit down with me and eat liver and okra, which I know you detest, but you should be willing because I like it so much (and hey look at the wonderful thing I did for you by eating chocolate cake with you)." The name for someone who pulls that bullshit gambit is Dishonest Bad Faith Dealer.

The other thing that really needs to be spelled out for RFFF's benefit is the problem with this particular M third.

If Boyfriend is not into homosexual contact at all, then the other guy who is to be your third needs to be someone who will leave Boyfriend the hell alone, and concentrate all his awesome M attention on the F. The ex-boyfriend that LW picked is exactly wrong for this precisely because he says he has the hots for Boyfriend. This means he is likely to try to put the moves on Boyfriend, who already stated that he is not open to that sort of attention. As should be glaringly obvious, this can only end badly.

If you are going to push the proposition that Boyfriend should suck it up in the case that some incidental M/M contact occurs, first you have to set things up such that the M/M contact is honestly incidental -- rather than pick someone who has the hots for him. Boyfriend stated his boundaries and Girlfriend is looking for ways not to work with them but to subvert them. That is NOT GGG. Both the original Letter Writer and RFFF failed rather egregiously on that concept.

@18 and 24: Yeah, it seems like GGG is being co-opted to "you can never tell me no." Your sex partner can tell you no--after giving some good faith consideration to the request--and still be GGG, especially if the "no" is at the extreme of some extra people you'd like one or both of you to be fucking. Well summed up in 30:
Boyfriend stated his boundaries and Girlfriend is looking for ways not to work with them but to subvert them. That is NOT GGG.

@27: The default is that women do a lot of things they aren't particularly into to please their men. There is no equality between the sexes if this is not also true of the men.
I'd much rather that women seeking equality spoke up for themselves, said no and acted like they meant it, and weren't afraid to negotiate "if I'm willing to do an FFM threeway for you, it will be within these boundaries and we will do an MMF threeway as well, which will include these things. Are you okay with that exchange?" Rather than everyone being a martyr who won't speak up.

And LW didn't object to FFMs, she wanted them, so claiming that she made a great martyred sacrifice which he now won't match is inaccurate.

@28: But if GF's fantasy is to have the attention of two men on her, that is different than wanting to watch her BF suck cock.
Coming up with a bisexual guy who's totally into her boyfriend does rather suggest the latter.

Mr Ophian - Ah; you could have provided an Exact Answer. RFFF advocates for 1:1, but she really ought to provide a citation if she's going to claim that most men up for dating a bi woman would be delighted with that ratio; not only does one wonder how she knows, but it does not require first-class cross-examination when confronted with such self-serving statistics. I could almost admire her attempt to categorize the original LW's participation in a jointly-held fantasy (even if it's 75/25 or 80/20 his) as "extraordinary" game, though I'm not sure how much more cleverly it would have had to have been done.

Presumably they've already had constructive dialogue. I'm going to guess that, on this issue, his capacity to be as "constructive" as she would like (which here I'll take to mean her not wanting just any old MMF, but one with the two hottest men she's ever known) is rather limited by highly plausible issues where he has worked out at least a workable arrangement if not an absolute resolution. (The original letter is fuzzy on whether outsourcing is acceptable, assuming that's what you meant by accommodation.) Will you accept a spectrum here of aggressive mislabeling?

I'm getting a sense that Machiavelli would be pleased with this thread. It seems to be emerging that the admission to sharing a partner's fantasy is a dreadful tactical mistake; this sort of framing seems to bode ill if it worms its way into the GGG concept.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're not being a bad partner if you don't want to have a same-sex threesome. That MFF threesome they had? BOTH parties had fantasized about it. The guy from the original letter very specifically was NOT into the idea of an MMF threesome. End of story.

If he feels like pushing his boundaries, more power to him, but not everyone in the world is bi.

There's a difference between, "This doesn't turn me on" and "I find this profoundly disturbing." Being heterosexual is a big part of most men's identities. Maybe it shouldn't be, but right now it is. It's not that out there for them to say, "I don't want to kiss or be sexually intimate with other men." If this guy was only freaked out by a threesome with that specific other guy, then fine, but if it's MMFs in general, then oh well.

I don't see sex as commerce. Just because the woman agrees to a FFM doesn't mean that the guy has to agree to an MMF. The guy should be appropriately grateful and should reciprocate, but it's not like this is the only way he could do that. His girlfriend was bi and did something that wasn't for herself but that she didn't find disturbing. That's how these things should be evaluated.

Ha ha, Dan has some pretty obtuse readers. "Let's correct him, not realizing this is a joke!"

Also, letter writer: "She's the woman who's biggest fantasy was to be with two men at once." WHOSE. Not who is.

Ugh, (don't) fuck dudes; all take and no give. GGG my puss.

Reminds me of all the douches who would egg on my friends and I to make out, despite our being completely hetero, but as soon as we turned the tables and said, no, you and your guy friend first, the game was off.

Lame.

Mr. Ven @23, I'm intrigued by your point: "I took against LW not for anything to do with threesomes but because she's trying to push him into probing what could be a deep wound with apparent insensitivity."

You are right that it is insensitive and self-serving of the LW to act like her straight bf should try a threesome with a guy who is sexually interested in him.

But your post made me look at the original letter again. I think it's legitimate for her to ask her husband whether he might agree to some transgressive gender play, with him sucking her strap-on, for instance. I have been with straight men who were at first only intrigued by the idea, and then willing to try it, and then found they enjoyed sucking my cock, and then were willing to start fantasizing together about sucking a real guy's cock, and then were willing to actually do that. Over time, a guy who is sucking his girlfriend's rubber cock one year may be sucking her other boyfriend's cock in five years. It happens.

@36

Another poster with reading comprehension problems. There was no "taking" going on in the letter at all because FFM was a SHARED fantasy.

Ms Erica - Well, of course it's legitimate to ask almost anything. If LW actually enjoys gender play of a transgressing nature, there's nothing wrong with asking. If she were to ask for TGP with the full intention of its being a gateway as you describe (a plausible plot line), that's Machiavellian again, and a nasty thing to do. Asking and discussing, though? I never broke up with or held it against anyone who asked for an equivalent thing, not that such requests ever resulted in much of anything beyond a candid discussion.

I think your progression makes more sense with straight men (less likely to have quite a full realization of all their capacities, when their first instinct walked them right into societal goodies). And, in this case, Husband clearly has been on the aggressive (adversarial?) mislabeling spectrum, although, perhaps thankfully, possibly not that far along. For some of us, our monosexual orientations have been hard-preserved and required lengthy battle against outside forces to establish. While there are some who find TGP liberating, for many (most in my experience) of us it's a non-starter, or only palatable in the tiniest and most highly-controlled doses.

In this particular case, LW has asked (or perhaps pushed). She appears to have hit a hard limit backed by a certain amount of cause. If she takes your TGP suggestion and twists the idea into using it as a gateway plan to trick him into liking it "for his own good" (and the letter gives clear signs that she's already halfway down that thought path) - well, I'd rank that in Julius King territory.

Oh, bother - Boyfriend, not Husband.

Ms F - Not "my biggest fantasy" does not quite equate to "did something that wasn't for her". If I were forced into a guess, it might be that the MFFs were perhaps his #2 or #3 fantasy and her #4 or #5, so that the best stab at reciprocation would be for them to devote some time and effort to another shared fantasy a couple of notches higher up on her list.

Then, too, if one reads the letter carefully, there's no specification that he was the primary mover behind or beneficiary of the MFFs. We don't even know if they were FMFs or FFMs. I'll stick with my guess, and still maintain it as a probable point in her favour that the letter carries no hint of commercialism. But the letter as printed is more consistent with LW instigating the threesomes with women (even if she'd rather instigate threesomes with men) - a viewpoint nobody has taken - than with her doing it entirely to please him and wondering if there's any way to get him to reciprocate.

I'm proud of you, Sloggers. And here I was starting to think reading comprehension was a lost art.

Dear Dan,
Thank you for printing my letter and for the fantastic editing. Except for the who’s/whose typo, I was mortified. But Holy Shiitake, that’s awesome, I'm a Savage fanatic.
I wrote because WHWALB was already trying to drop it when her ex arrived on the scene. And the last sentence was sad, “Should I just give up this dream?” Dreams are the ideas that keep us living life. I love Dan for applying his relationship skills toward honoring romantic and occasionally downright squicky dreams. The advice in the same column to outsource the D/s kinkster’s needs was much more hopeful. And I really have to applaud this advice for the BF to pick a different third and give it a try without the bi part.

Mr. Ven @39, I have never heard of a guy trying to convert his gay bf to bisexuality. Not saying it has never happened -- but it's rare. OTOH, it's much less rare in straight couples, where quite a lot of people (male & female) fantasize about seeing their partner engage in same-sex play.

So I wouldn't worry that giving straight women permission to see if they can entice their men into bisexuality would lead to bi guys trying to pressure gay guys into bisexuality. As you say, "straight men [are] less likely to have quite a full realization of all their capacities," and women like WHWALB may be excused for hoping their guys are something other than a Kinsey 0.

Ms(?) RFFF - We can agree on some points. LW should not have to give up on her biggest dream (although it may turn out to be kinder of her to give up on the MM portion of the version she presents - even with a different third - happening with this particular BF). And the Savage Compromise strikes me as being as "most reasonable people ought to be able to go there" as it does you. I'll sort-of-agree as well about Mr Avast's analogy; chocolate cake vs liver/okra is poor framing, liver and okra being far healthier. Caviar and escargots, both being gourmet/luxury items and perhaps about equally not necessarily to everyone's taste, would have been a better choice.

There are points in LW's favour. She doesn't present as straight or as bi with a heavy lean, which would flavour the letter and the MFFs/FMFs they've already had. She presents the past threesomes as shared fantasies, which would get her a failing grade at Machiavelli's Academy for Sexual Negotiation. And she never uses the word I think to be loaded here - reciprocation.

Points against: As Mr Savage noted, she seems oblivious to the situation that her presented choice of MMF is the equivalent of pushing BF off the high dive when he belongs if anywhere in the wading pool. And she basically wants to power through things that should be treated with care. Could be malice; could be innocence; could be misconception. We aren't really sure where on the spectrum she falls, and some people more towards the centre don't entirely believe in anyone's genuinely being completely off the versatility grid (likely? less often than the other way around, but it's not a main point, and I shan't dwell on it). It is possible. But her framing of his reluctance just strikes me so badly. He's "nervous" about being with another man because of "performance anxiety"? That might just fly in an MFM with no more than the briefest incidental MM contact, but she apparently wants significant if not major MM contact. And his being "not comfortable with exploring his sexuality" and how She Knows Better Than He Does what's good for him (which just oh so accidentally happens to coincide with what his doing what she wants him to do and like it) certainly fits with Mr Savage's "at least disrespectful".

Now, while I'm fine with the recommendation's being made to BF that he provide the MFM with no MM contact, I acknowledge that he may not be able to go that far due to his experience with Adversarial Mislabeling - another spectrum. I got the high end of that spectrum, having to undergo and defeat an attempt of others to intrude and force upon me a highly adversarial label to my own. If forced to make a diagnosis of BF on only the evidence before us, I will say that he has a Thing about orientation. Maybe it's not a very strong Thing; maybe it's a serious Issue - or would be if he were forced to open a door and enter a room that doesn't bother him when it's locked and he just passes by in the hallway. Discuss it by all means, but it certainly is a point, perhaps a strong one, against the likely success of LW's sanguine expectation that "he might enjoy himself". This is likely (although not necessarily) a much harder limit than LW or you care to acknowledge.

The most interesting part of your letter is that you appear to advocate for a 1:1 ratio between FMFs and MFMs even though one is a shared (even if tilted, and the evidence provided only states that she has a bigger fantasy, so that we're far from certainty that this one is tilted to favour him) fantasy and the other is One Partner Closing Eyes And Thinking Of Ireland. Is that really what you think fair, or, similarly to the way that Ms Erica advocates for OS-married men contemplating opening the marriage to Embrace Their Inner Cuckolds because life favours extramarital prospects of their wives over their own, is it what you think the market will let them negotiate? I see a potential sticking point here for mixed-orientation partnerships, which was why I was hoping Mr Ophian might have had experience to support a tolerably definitive pronouncement as to what might be a good workable starting point in determining equity. (I hope Ms Erica does not find this representation to be an unacceptable distortion.)

I'm perfectly prepared to believe ill of BF. All we know is that he's not as into being with another man as would suit LW's fantasy. (It's not entirely clear whether the MFM with at worst incidental MM contact would suit her; this situation reminds me somewhat of the letter from the clingy vanilla person who indulged his kinky partner but didn't do it well enough to suit her. He then got all out of joint because she needed partners in kink who were into it for themselves.) What we know of her is that she doesn't get top marks on the respect front.

Can a reasonable bi woman "probably do better"? That may depend on what for her constitutes her baseline of desired engagement. If BF refuses her the MFM with incidental-at-most MM contact or outsourcing - fair enough. If she requires a significant other who will happily be with another man in her presence - well, then, maybe Mr Ophian can refer her to one of his bi friends, because she really ought to be dating in a more specialized pool.

Ms Erica - You've never heard of it? I've seen it often. Logistically this sort of thing is obviously much more common among OS couples, I grant.

Asking for a bit of cross-orientational play to fulfill a fantasy is one thing. Helping an interested and engaged partner to explore undeveloped potential is much the same thing. Trying to lure a partner into a change of orientation is despicable, even if the trap is lined with honey instead of a sword. You can hardly expect me to say anything else.

We may be having a bit of apples and oranges. BF in this case, having coped with (considerable?) Adversarial Labeling, has likely undergone examination of his sexuality closer to that typical of bi or gay men than that typical of straight men. I doubt he'd be the most likely candidate to "take well" to TGP, at least in the gateway manner you describe, as he's so likely to have fuller knowledge of his own potential. And, if she adopts the gateway strategy, with the entire purpose being to bring about the sort of FMM threesome she wants with him, her giving him credit for what he does for her will be based on his reaching a hidden goal which he may not want to achieve, and not on his engaging in TGP in good faith. The hidden agenda always must be counted a few points minus.

"Trying to lure a partner into a change of orientation is despicable"

Hm. I think I am irremediably biased by my own experiences. I have changed so much in the last twenty years, largely due to pressure from my beloved dom/husband. And I have seen him change so much, due to internal pressures I can only imagine. So, yes, you can put me in the camp of "people more towards the center" who believe that some people who say they are "completely off the versatility grid" will find out over the course of their lifetimes that they were wrong. Trying to compensate for my bias, I will grant you that LW is on shaky grounds trying to pressure BF to take any steps at all towards fulfilling her fantasy, and she is not a trustworthy reporter as to the likelihood of him enjoying himself with a guy.

But if they stay together in the long run, she is likely to pressure him anyway. He should leave if that pressure is unacceptable, as she seems to have rather a lot of opinions about his sex life.

One more clarification from a very straight guy who likes the MFM 3-ways.

In my experience it isn't really a "no contact" rule - sex is a contact sport after all.
It's more a "no running sexual energy between the Ms" rule.

If one of the Ms WANTS to run sexual toward the other M,
but the other isn't into it, that is indeed a recipe for disaster.

When both Ms clearly have their sexual energy focused on the F,
incidental (or even homosensual) contact is fine.

@51 "It’s trans orientation play that is the taboo here"
Good point.

@50: "this guy may have a double standard with homosexuality since he can’t talk about this side of himself after he’s enjoyed seeing this side of her."

Double standard? False dichotomy. If Boyfriend is happy to see Letter Writer be who she wants to be (i.e., bisexual) , then he too should be accorded the same freedom to be who he wants to be (i.e., strongly heterosexually oriented).

Framing it as (pardon my attempted paraphrase here) "If you don't mind me being bi, then you shouldn't mind being bi yourself, which makes me think you are secretly closeted and therefore harboring a double standard" is kind of solipsistic.

" She should ask him instead of speculate, he should answer her"

They _have_ talked about it. From the letter: "I've brought it up with my BF, but he just doesn't find men attractive and isn't into it." And then she continues to wander tentatively down the path that he has already rejected, hoping there is some way to get him to see it her way. The problem isn't that she hasn't asked, nor that he hasn't answered. The problem is that she isn't listening.

@36: "all the douches who would egg on my friends and I to make out, despite our being completely hetero,"

Well, did you do it? Despite being completely hetero? Or did you decline?

" but as soon as we turned the tables and said, no, you and your guy friend first,

Ah. "You go first." In other words, you declined. Just like they did.

In other words, you did exactly what the "douches" that you affect to despise did. Because homosexual contact didn't appeal to you personally. But you were perfectly happy being the audience, had the boys taken you up on your Darers Go First retort. (At least you would need to be happy audience, having offered it up as an option. Otherwise they would have gone first, performing at your request, for which you would only despise them, and then you would have reneged on your half of the deal, which would make you even worse bad-faith dealers.)

@51: Why use the word "trans" at all? It has a specific, well-understood meaning already and doesn't need to be further conflated with sexual orientation.

We've spent years telling guys the importance of taking "no" for an answer, it's unfortunate that some women haven't gotten the message.

@55: While I agree with your sentiment elsewhere, I think the "You first" in this context is a way to shut down annoying harassment, not an offer to actually exchange sexual favors with strangers. Like responding to "Hey baby, wanna ride my big hog?" with "Okay. Unzip, right now, let me see what we're working with."

Any guy who actually followed through on that directive would probably not wind up having sex in the middle of the bar. But if you have the nerve to throw it back at him, you can be fairly confident that he will not follow through, will call you a psycho bitch, and will leave with his friends.

"Hey, you guys should make out! Come on! whiiiiiiine" is pretty similar to "Hey, show us your tits!" It's a demand for a sex show from random strangers, where the harassers figure worst case their targets will look kinda creeped out and back away from them, best case they'll obey, if you have to try it on 100 girls before 1 obeys who cares how the 99 felt? I don't think it really qualifies as an attempt to help random girls at the bar get in touch with inner fantasies the guys would like to explore in a mutually vulnerable way.

@58: I don't think we're really talking about a sincere attempt to help straight-identifying guys get in touch with their inner fantasies in a mutually vulnerable way, either.

Thinking that it would be hot to see your guy with another guy is fine; shaming him (or bullying him or manipulating him) for not agreeing with you is not. If you want to date bi guys, date bi guys (I'm sure they'd appreciate it). Just don't turn around and give him shit because you're worried he might really be gay.

@59--My wife frequently has sex with guys--well, with a guy--okay, with me--but I have flat out refused to do the same. Also, I really enjoy having sex with women, and yet she won't even fantasize about it, let alone give it a try. I fret about this lack of symmetry. Are we doomed?

LW is bi. BF is not. End of story.

@59: No it's fucking not a "red flag" when someone enjoys activities they wouldn't do themselves. Is there something wrong with straight guys who won't suck cock? Straight girls who won't lick pussy? Butch lesbians who won't wear dresses?

You keep saying "maybe he's just that hot", as some kind of underhanded threat. Maybe you're just *not* that hot.

You need to learn some fucking respect for other people's choices and identities.

@59
Congratulations, you've managed to twist GGG into a ridiculous knot where you don't even respect your partner's sexual orientation. Brilliant!

@62,63,64 He isn't game for anything within reason if he won't discuss a MMF. They've been enjoying FFMs. Cross orientation play is an additional desire that she can also try to negotiate. It's ok to state your desire or ask for your desire or negotiate your desire. It's not abusive. There's no coercion, bullying, deceptive manipulation or need to get your panties in a twist. Is this still Savage's blog?

@61 In heterosexual sex, you substitute gender and anatomical analogies (him for her/his for her/dick for clit/prostate for g spot/nuts for ovaries/M for F) for maximum symmetry in physical pleasure. Vaginas are like a hallway to different nerve clusters, but can be analogous to a penis or butt in different contexts, re: access to a g spot or stroking the clit from inside. Only homosexual partners with similar anatomies esp. nervous systems can possess perfect symmetry in physical pleasure, and that is neglecting mental desires. I also think that symmetry is beautiful. I hope that this helps.

"Less MMF and more MFM."

wow, right ON. that is what it's all about! love you, Dan.